Partly allowed

Smt. Banoth , Kampelli Kavitha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Sept 2022CRLP/4365/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings against petitioners accused of offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 34. The Court held that since DNA test results and civil court orders authenticated the petitioner's ST Lambada caste status, allegations of document forgery could not sustain, and allowing the trial wou

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against Petitioners in CC No. 875 of 2015 are hereby quashed.

Smt. Banoth , Kampelli Kavitha Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁵⁹ ]

¶2

I I I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 436s OF 2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

't. Smt. Banoth @ Kampelli Kavitha, Wo Kampelli Rajam,

¶10

Kampelli Rajam, S/o Yellaiah,

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the

¶14

State of Telangana

¶15

2' Bukva Ramu Naik @ Ramu' 11"E3iiro=Nrsi DEFACT. coMpLAlNANr

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in CC No. 875 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bellampalli which was registered against the petitioners alleging the offences under Section 12O(B), 420, 468, 471 Rl/w 34 IPC to secure the ends of^justice as the same is abuse of process of law

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in CC No. 875 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bellampalli including appearance of the petitioners

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.RAVI KIRAN RAO, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE I()N'BLE DR. JUSTICE D. NA.GI\IT,J]IN

¶22

CR IIIINAL PETITION No.4365 of 2 011)

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This petit on is filed by the petitioners/Al a.lrd Al2 seeking quashment of r harge sheet filed against thern in^(1.C.1{o.875 of 2015 for the < ffences punishable under Sections l2OB, 42O, 468, 471read \ ith 34 IPC.

¶25

The facts n brief as per the charge sheet are rrs under;

¶26

Petitioner No.l/Al belongs to SC commr-rniW. With an intention to c lntest the 16th Ward as Cournsellor of the Bellampally Mr nicipality, which is reserved for ST General, in collusion with petitioner No.1/A3 prepared a- fake study certificate men -ioning petitioner No.1's caste as Lambada of Bhakta Singh^' 'handa. As per the said plan, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 went to^()overnment Community Hospital, Bellampally, and produced t re fake study certificate on the ba.sis of which the medical officer relieving the fake study certificate a.s genuine has issued a caste :ertificate stating that petitioner N,c. I belongs to ST La.rnbada b^. caste. Later A I and A2 also went to one B. Sridhar, Secre .ary, SC/ ST Protection Societl. and got the

¶27

)

¶28

certilicate from him as well stating as A1 is Lambada by caste. Further, A1 and A2 applied to the revenue authorities by enclosing fake certificate issued by the medical officer, on the basis of which, VRO certifred that A1 belong to Lambada caste. MRO on the recommendation of VRO has issued the certificate to the effect that A1 belonging to ST community. Basing on which A1 filed nomination for 16e Ward, contested and won the elections.

¶29

On a complaint given by the de-facto complainant who lost the election to A1, police have registered a case in Crime No. 144 of 2Ol4 for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC During the course of investigation, police have recorded the statements of the de-facto complainant, MRO, VRO, VAO and all other connected persons and charge sheet is flled against the petitioners/Al and ,{2 ald also against A3 alleging that they have committed the offences under Sections 12O(B), 420, 468 atd 471 read u,ith 34 IPC

¶30

As per the charge sheet filed by the^police, petitioner No.l though belonging to SC community, in order to contest the elections of 16th Ward of Bellampally Municipality, which^is

¶31

¶32

reserved for ST^(ieneral, a fake certilicate^r,r'as; cr eate d to the effect that she relong to ST Lambada. Thottgl. p(ltiticner No.¹ has u'on the e ection, she was disqualified b5' ttre competent authorities as r lected member for allegedly fiiir.g tLre fake caste certificate. Hovever, she has filed W.P.No'S951 of 2015 and got interim orders rlrspending the orders passed by'the authorities disqualifying pr titioner No. I

¶33

Petitioner No.1 has fiied election O.P.Nc.3.lO of'2Ct 15 on the file of III Add: :ional District Judge, Asifabad, qur:stroning the disqualificatior of her election for Ward No. I b oi- Beliampally undcr Section 16(1) (aa) and 17 of the A.P IVI Lur icipalitie s Act During the cor rse of enquiry, she herself offeroc to get DNA test done. As per he directions of the Court DNA 1-est was; done and as per the res ults of the DNA test, it was found thal petitioner No.1 Kavitha s the daughter of one Sharada/RV/.2, rvho belong to L:rmbada S^'.

¶34

¶35

Mother rf petitioner No.l by hame Sharadrr was examined as RW.2 in C.P.No.340 of 2015, wherein she h,ls dt:posed that she belong tr Lambada caste, petitioner No.1 is ht:r daughter and she has r riginally married to Sakram/RW.3 eurd ,luring their

¶36

¶37

ma-rital life, she gave birth to petitioner No.l-Kavitha and also alother daughter, Leelavathi. Subsequently, dispute arose between RWs.2 and 3 thereby she separated and took divorce and she married one Venkataswamy, who belongs to SC Caste and she brought up her children, including petitioner No.1 in the family along with V enkataswamy.

¶38

Petitioner No. t has studied from class I to V at Bhaghatsingh Thanda at Dornakal School in Bellampally showing Venkataswamy as the father of petitioner No. l. Therefore, though originally petitioner No. 1 and her mother/Sharada belong to ST Lambada, subsequently, alter taking divorce with her husband, RW.2 has married one Venkataswamy belonging to SC caste. Since petitioner No.1 also grown up in the house, Venkataswamy as her father in all her school records, petitioner No.1 caste is shown as SC, though she belongs to ST caste as per the finding of DNA test. Therefore, the civil Court has ultimately gave a finding in E.O.P.No.340 of 2015 that petitioner No.1 belongs to ST^Lambada and accordingly the proceedings of the authorities disqualifying her election :_1"^*, aside and the same was binding.

-t

I i

The alle ;ations against petitioner No. 1 i,s thrrt though petitioner No. belongs to SC caste, she l-ras ,:r'eated a fake document that she belongs to ST Lambada ; nc l[,:,1 nomination for the electio rs .as ST Lambada. Though pel i - oner No. 1 by birth is a Lar rbada, since her school dor:uro,:n ts sihow that petitioner No.1 belong to SC community, t1e rLuthorities have disqualified h:r election, thereby the petit.irmer has filed E.O.P.No.34O rf 2015 arld the salne w.rs rLll,ru,erl by the concdrned Cor- rt declaring that the electior of 1r:titioner No.1 cannot be dir qualified as a Counsellor^,rf \Vzilcl No.16 of Bellampally Ml nicipality and those orders have b::ome {inal.

¶43

Once pet tioner No.l is declared to L,e bel:nging to ST Lambada, all lhe allegations against her thirt sht: created documents as f she belongs to ST Lambada urill no1. sustain. Therefore, all l re allegations and consequerrti:il registration of the case arrd sr bsequent proceedings issued ag;rin:;t hr:r will not have any validil f .

¶44

Consideri: Lg the discussion above, since r:titioner No.1 belong to ST, it cannot be said that she forge d a c:r:rtif;cate that she belongs to ST Lambada and she used the s;r:te before the

election authorities and has cheated thc de-facto complainant cannot be accepted. In case, if the trial is allowed to continue against the petitioners, it amount to abuse of process of law.

¶49

L2. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/Al and A2 in C.c.No.B75 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bellampally, are hereby quashed.

¶50

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶51

Sd/.T.JAYAS E ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// To SECTION OFFICER l The Judiciar Maoistrate of Firsl crass, Berampari, Adirabad District. 2. The Station Houie ofiicer, p.C. B;l;;;i;i_l(ii, oo,,ro"o o,r,ri.,. 9. 9nu^{cC to Sri V.Ravi Kiran} nao, AaroJaie'tciiiicl ' Iy.'fr";:",33ii0'o erosecutor' t-tisr' c"Li'r"'iti," state or reransana at 5. Two CD Coiies . _.^{6. One Sparebopy} Ki'^----

HIGH COURT

DATED:2110912022

ORDER

CRLP.No.4365 of : 0'19

¶56

THE CRL.P. ALLI )WED.

¶57

=_-:::
:LI,1):
,/,4+' At
it4
F.ra s
Q-,
t

¶58

@
^{^+
1
.>4 \ <br>

Smt. Banoth , Kampelli Kavitha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Banoth , Kampelli Kavitha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunam Raghava Reddy, Jubille Hills., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Yasam Pocham, Adilabad Dist. Vs Sho, Ps Mancherial, Adilabad Dist. and Ano

Smt. Bittu Sunitha Rani, Vs The State of Telangana

Kotla Narsimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

R. Praveen Kumar , Praveen Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Vasarla Ashok Vs The State of Telangana